Pass argument to proc, expected result is puts $cust_id in proc will print the 123 instead of $cust_id
proc hello {cust_id} {
puts $cust_id
}
set cust_id 123
puts $cust_id
hello {$cust_id}
Output is
123
$cust_id
When you call hello, you give it a value and it prints that value that it was given (because you pass it to puts inside the body). When you call:
puts $cust_id
You are telling Tcl to read the cust_id variable and use that as the argument word to puts. But if you do:
hello {$cust_id}
then you are disabling substitutions (that's the literal meaning of putting something in braces in Tcl, and always was) so you get $cust_id passed into hello (and printed).
You can pass variables to procedures. You do it by giving them the name of the variable, and then using upvar to bind that to a local name. Like this:
proc hello {varName} {
upvar $varName someLocalName
puts $someLocalName
}
set cust_id 123
hello cust_id
Note that this is exactly the pattern used by the set command above. It is not special (other than that it is provided for you by the Tcl runtime; it's standard library, not language per se).
Yes, the upvar name is special (it converts a variable name into a variable) and it, along with uplevel, is one of the key features of Tcl that other languages don't have.
Related
I'm learning about Tcl just now. I've seen just a bit of it, I see for instance to create a variable (and initialize it) you can do
set varname value
I am familiarizing with the fact that basically everything is a string, such as "value" above, but "varname" gets kind of a special treatment I guess because of the "set" built-in function, so varname is not interpreted as a string but rather as a name.
I can later on access the value with $varname, and this is fine to me, it is used to specify varname is not to be considered as a string.
I'm now reading about lists and a couple commands make me a bit confused
set colors {"aqua" "maroon" "cyan"}
puts "list length is [llength $colors]"
lappend colors "purple"
So clearly "lappend" is another one of such functions like set that can interpret the first argument as a name and not a string, but then why didn't they make it llength the same (no need for $)?
I'm thinking that it's just a convention that, in general, when you "read" a variable you need the $ while you don't for "writing".
A different look at the question: what Tcl commands are appropriate for list literals?
It's valid to count the elements of a list literal:
llength {my dog has fleas}
But it doesn't make sense to append a new element to a literal
lappend {my dog has fleas} and ticks
(That is actually valid Tcl, but it sets the odd variable ${my dog has fleas})
this is more sensible:
set mydog {my dog has fleas}
lappend mydog and ticks
Names are strings. Or rather a string is a name because it is used as a name. And $ in Tcl means “read this variable right now”, unlike in some other languages where it really means “here is a variable name”.
The $blah syntax for reading from a variable is convenient syntax that approximately stands in for doing [set blah] (with just one argument). For simple names, they become the same bytecode, but the $… form doesn't handle all the weird edge cases (usually with generated names) that the other one does. If a command (such as set, lappend, unset or incr) takes a variable name, it's because it is going to write to that variable and it will typically be documented to take a varName (variable name, of course) or something like that. Things that just read the value (e.g., llength or lindex) will take the value directly and not the name of a variable, and it is up to the caller to provide the value using whatever they want, perhaps $blah or [call something].
In particular, if you have:
proc ListRangeBy {from to {by 1}} {
set result {}
for {set x $from} {$x <= $to} {incr x $by} {
lappend result $x
}
return $result
}
then you can do:
llength [ListRangeBy 3 77 8]
and
set listVar [ListRangeBy 3 77 8]
llength $listVar
and get exactly the same value out of the llength. The llength doesn't need to know anything special about what is going on.
I have searched for lappend $var1 $var2, but don't find any exact answer, how it will be executed.
% set a {a b c}
a b c
% set b {d e}
d e
% puts [lappend $c $b]
can't read "c": no such variable >>> here it throws error like variable not exist
% puts [lappend $a $b]
{d e} >>> here it doesn't throw any error, can someone explain it and how to print the value of $a, if $a is a new variable
% puts $$A
can't read "A": no such variable
% puts $$a
$a b c
% puts ${$a}
can't read "$a": no such variable
Tcl's got a two level syntax that it applies rigorously to everything. The first level is the Tcl generic syntax, which takes:
lappend $var1 $var2
and parses it out to three words: lappend, a word obtained by reading the variable var1, and a word obtained by reading the variable var2.
Then Tcl dispatches to the command named by the first word (lappend, a Tcl built-in) which applies command syntax handling. In the case of lappend, it's pretty simple: the first argument names a variable and the second and subsequent arguments are words to append to the list in the named variable.
In your case, the first argument that names a variable is obtained by reading another variable (var1) and the value to append to the list is coming from a variable (var2); a name like a b c d e is a legal variable name in Tcl, but it's really awkward to use. And the chance is very high that you don't want to write that: putting variable names in a variable is usually an indicator of confusing code. You can do it, but you hardly ever want to do it (except when you're using the variable name with upvar). You probably really meant to write:
lappend var1 $var2
Tcl is very exact about the distinction between variable names and variable contents. The $ is not decorative! It's there to say “read this variable, right now”, and $var1 is virtually equivalent to [set var1] in semantic terms. (The $ shorthand was later, a Tcl 2.0 feature from way back in the day!)
Tcl also doesn't allow double-dereferencing with $$vrbl. In the rare cases you need it, you do [set $vrbl]. And if you do that, you probably should immediately see if you can use an array instead as that's typically a better choice…
lappend's first parameter is a variable name, not a value. Therefore, in general, it should be:
lappend var1 $var2
where both var1 and var2 are list variables. See the Tcl lappend man page for more details.
I just tried the following in tclsh:
proc pp {$ag} { puts hi}
pp whatever
To my surprise, this works fine! I had expected a syntax error because the proc argument is a variable. But it seems tcl takes it fine.
Then I experimented:
proc pp {$ag} { puts "hi $ag"}
pp whatever
and
proc pp {$ag} { puts "hi ${$ag}"}
pp whatever
I got error, can't read "ag": no such variable.
This makes me wondering, can proc argument be variable? If not, why not error out in the first script?
The first case works because you never use the parameter to pp.
When you invoke the proc command, the text of the invocation is evaluated just like in any other command invocation. In all the above cases, the third argument (which will become the argument list of the pp command) is is wrapped in braces, which means it won't be evaluated as a variable but as a string of three characters: "$ag" (i.e. the dollar sign is just a regular character here). This is not an error, and does work, just not the way you seem to expect it to.
It's a bit tricky to get the value of the parameter $ag, though. This works:
proc pp {$ag} {puts "hi [set {$ag}]"}
The dollar notation is actually just syntactic sugar for the unary set command. Sometimes the dollar notation won't work, and you need to fall back to an explicit set.
This does work too, though:
proc pp {$ag} {puts "hi ${$ag}"}
So, in your invocations, the third argument to proc isn't really a variable evaluation, it just looks like one. You can of course use an actual variable evaluation in the invocation of proc:
set foo {bar baz}
proc qux $foo {puts $bar ; puts $baz}
qux abc def
# => abc
# => def
What the Tcl interpreter really sees here is:
proc qux {bar baz} {puts $bar ; puts $baz}
Or you can go really crazy:
set foa {proc qux}
set fob {bar}
lappend fob baz
set foc {puts $bar}
set fod "puts \$baz"
{*}$foa $fob [join [list $foc $fod] { ; }]
Which amounts to the same thing as the previous invocation of proc. (If you don't believe me, try list {*}$foa $fob [join [list $foc $fod] { ; }])
This example just looks (and is) weird, but many times it's actually useful to construct new commands within your program, and in those cases it's really nice that the text used in the invocation of proc, like with any other command, is simply text that the evaluation rules of Tcl can be applied to. You can use any kinds of string or list operations on it and join up pieces of text from various sources, even user input (if you can trust it).
Documentation: Tcl evaluation rules including $ and {*}, join, lappend, list, proc, puts, set
I have to print multiple variables in a single puts like this
puts "$n1_$n2_$n3_$n4"
where n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 are 4 variables.
It wont print and will show error n1_ : no such variable
Expected output should be something like this (example)
01_abc_21_akdd
Variable names in Tcl can be any string in Tcl, there are no restrictions but if you want to use special characters (those not in the range of a-z, 0-9 and _, and letters in different languages depending on the platform and locale), you have to either brace the expression names or use other workarounds (like with the answer of Hoodiecrow).
What this means is that if you have a variable named abc.d, and if you use $abc.d, the Tcl engine will try to find the variable $abc because . is not a 'normal' character.
But if you have a variable named abc and use $abcd, or $abc_d, then the engine will start looking for the variables abcd or abc_d and not abc.
Because of this, you will have to use braces between the variable name for example:
${n1}
The reason why putting a backslash works is that \ is not a 'normal' character and after reading the above, it should be a little more obvious how things worked.
There are a few things that yet can go in variable names which don't need bracing and still mean something, except that something is 'special':
::: This is usually used for scoping purposes. For instance if you have a global variable named my_var, you can also use $::my_var to refer to it. Here :: tells Tcl that my_var is a global variable. Note that if there are more than two : in a row they will not add up:
% set ::y 5
5
% set ::::y
5
% set :::y
5
:: is usually used to define the namespace the variable is in. For example, $mine::var is a variable called var in the namespace with a name of mine.
(): These are used for arrays. $arr(key) is a variable with two parts: the array name arr and the key name key. Note: you can have an array named and a key named because...
% set () abc
abc
% puts $()
abc
% array get ""
{} abc
There might be some more, but those are the basics you could look out for.
Two other ways:
puts "${n1}_${n2}_${n3}_${n4}"
puts [format "%s_%s_%s_%s" $n1 $n2 $n3 $n4]
Documentation: format
(Note: the 'Hoodiecrow' mentioned in Jerry's answer is me, I used that nick earlier.)
I am a newbie in TCL Programming. I was having confusion about curly braces, answer to this question tcl curly braces cleared most of my doubts.
I can understand $var, {var}, and {$var}, But recently I came across another use of curly braces, ${var}. How is this interpreted by TCL?
I have seen this is used when accessing variables in namespaces when namespaces name is in variable.
for example:
set x myNamespace ;#myNamespace is name of namespace
puts [set ${x}::var1] ;#var1 is variable in the namespace
It gives error when you don't use curly braces around 'x'.
And I also don't understand the difference between {a b c} and [list a b c], what is the difference in result of interpretation of these two commands by TCL interpretation.
elaborated explanation would be highly appreciated.
See rule 8 of the manual. It allows you to have variable names that might get mis-interpreted. For instance:
% set dotted.name 1
1
% puts $dotted.name
can't read "dotted": no such variable
% puts ${dotted.name}
1
Read section 8 carefully as it actually explains all this quite explicitly.
Update to answer edited question
In the example you provide using a namespace name in a variable you must consider section 8 part 1: a variable name includes letters, digits, underscores and namespace separators. This means that x::var1 is a valid variable name. So $x::var1 will attempt to dereference the var1 variable in the x namespace. As this is not what you meant, you must dereference your x variable separately. There are two ways to do this. You can either use the set command or the dollar operator.
set x myNamespace
puts [set ${x}::var1]
puts [set [set x]::var1]
The two puts statements are equivalent here with the second version showing an explicit separate pass to obtain the value of the x variable which is then substituted into the expression for the outer set command. The same occurs in the first version but just uses the grouping operator to restrict the effect of the dollar to the x variable name.